Cities Spend a Ton of Money on Homelessness Without Solving the Problem
by John Lawrence
Recently Governor Newsom held up state homeless funds because cities were not getting the job done. Here's a solution: provide campgrounds and safe parking areas in addition to shelters and affordable housing units. In other words to all of the above present so-called solutions add safe campgrounds and parking areas. The beauty of this plan is that it would add minimum cost to all the other solutions. So while they are pursuing the more costly solutions, it would at least get the homeless off the public streets where they are interfering with pedestrian thoroughfares and businesses in general, and would provide them with an an enhanced version of their present living accommodations which are mainly in tents. It would also be more safe and sanitary. They would still be mainly in tents until more robust and expensive solutions can be found but at least they could be provided with portable toilets, showers and dumpster facilities as well as security. In addition social services could be more readily provided than the present solution of finding them on the public streets to offer them. What is wrong with these politicians? They could solve the homeless "problem" tomorrow at little or no expense as far as getting the homeless off public streets which is at least half the problem. The city owns a lot of vacant lots suitable for rural campsites and safe parking areas for those with vehicles. Portable rest room facilities could make the lot of the homeless and ordinary citizens immeasurably better if they would only use them.
Here's what I wrote before:
In an article by Scott Lewis he finally sheds some light on what should have been obvious to most observers of the homeless situation. Fact: Homeless people would rather live in a tent on the street than in a shelter. It's not hard to figure out why. They want privacy, pets, their own space, consumption of beverages of their own choice. He writes, "It turns out, unhoused residents are a lot like people who have homes. They want privacy. They want, though, to be close to community. They like pets. They like being together with loved ones. And yes, some of them like to do drugs or drink. All of these things, however, can be restricted or difficult in a congregate setting." Make sense? I have long advocated that local governments set aside city owned land so that homeless people could set up their tents and have some basic social service like portable toilets, showers and storage. In addition social workers could provide them with their services like the city so often says they want to do. So why don't they do it especially if they are in one or more centralized location off the streets and somewhere that can be made into a more sanitary setting. Did I mention dumpsters? By the way the city actually did that temporarily during the hepatitis crisis in 2017.
So here is my solution, and then I'll tell you why it will never be implemented. Set aside land for free campgrounds just as a city sets aside land for parks. These should be open to all people not just the "homeless" at some snapshot in time. The financial savings from not building lumber and concrete housing would be immense. These campgrounds should have basic services like rest room facilities and showers. Also trash collection and security. The homeless can provide their own tents as they already have which are strewn all over public sidewalks. This solution accomplishes two very important goals: 1) it provides a marginally better lifestyle for the homeless with much better sanitary conditions and 2) it gets the homeless off the streets and sidewalks letting the general public feel safe in using them again. The money saved in police and hospital resources would probably more than pay for the minimal services provided. In addition social worker services in terms of mental health, drug counseling and job search might be provided as they say they want to provide today.
So this solution would make both the general public, who could reclaim the streets and sidewalks, and the homeless, who would have a marginally better and more sanitary life, better off and the whole scenario could be implemented on a very cost effective basis. Why would it never be implemented in America? Here's why. It heightens the fear among politicians and especially conservatives that the homeless population would continue to grow unabated as more and more people would choose to live in a campground than to pay exorbitant rent. Landlords would lobby politicians because they would fear losing their tenants. People on the lowest rungs of the financial ladder would lose their fear of becoming homeless as a free or almost free solution to housing in lumber and concrete becomes available. Most of the homeless already have rudimentary transportation i.e. bicycles. This gives them access to bus routes which can get them around the city. Most have some income which they use for food at fast food places which, while not nutritious, at least keeps them from starving. So my solution would not necessarily include food services or transportation services but it could.
